Path based versioning not recognizing '/' route

[jch]

Path based versioning works for all routes whose paths are not the root path '/'

require 'grape'
require 'rack-test'

class API < Grape::API
  version 'v1', using: :path
  # this works fine if you change it to /hello
  get '/' do
    "I am version 1"
  end
end

include Rack::Test::Methods
def app
  API
end

get '/v1/'
# prints not found
puts "/ with path version v1: " + last_response.body
puts

get '/v1'
# also prints not found
puts "/ with path version v1: " + last_response.body
puts

[gerhard]

Is anyone else bothered about this? Worth a patch?

[jch]

@gerhard definitely worth a patch, just haven't found time to fix it.

[gerhard]

@jch will see if I can make some time for this. This is what I'm currently using (as a workaround):

    # This should have been the default route, but grape requires a fix for this:
    # https://github.com/intridea/grape/issues/86
    desc 'The current page, showing details about all available routes'
    get '/routes' do
      API.routes.map { |route| route.instance_variable_get(:@options) }
    end

[jch]

@gerhard thanks, feel free to ping me if you need any explanation of the code. My fix in the project was to not use a top level route and always scope things underneath a resource name:

class API < Grape::API
  resources :things do
    # routes /things fine
    get do
    end
  end
end

[walski]

Hey guys, I'm running into the same issue. After some investigating it seems all to boil down to a mechanism in rack-mount which normalizes the path of each request before matching it against the route set. Anyway, if you do that for a path versioned call you end up with a call to /v1/ actually being a call to /v1 while the grape route matches on:

/\A\/(?<version>v1)\/(?:\.(?<format>[^\/.?]+))?\Z/

which then does not match anymore. I suggest just changing the matcher to be like

/\A\/(?<version>v1)(\/?:\.(?<format>[^\/.?]+))?\Z/

(notice that the middle \/ part is now inside of the brackets)

This way it will match on the normalized path. Any obligations? If not I will just do so and send you guys a pull request once that is done.

Cheers

[jch]

@walski great sleuthing! I'd love to see a PR for this, especially if you could have tests for both cases (trailing and non-trailing slash).